beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Defendant and D did not support the victim Fbucks by sending them, as stated in paragraph 2 of the facts charged in the 2015 Highest 166 case.
2) Since the victim C did not engage in business on the date and time set forth in Section 3 of the facts charged in the case No. 2015 senior group 166, the victim C did not interfere with the business operations of A, B, D and the victim C.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, 1) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to Article 166 of the facts charged in the 166 case, i.e., the victim F, from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court, the Defendant and D caused the victim’s injury.
According to the video recorded on September 4, 2014, the Defendant and D consistently stated the victim F is sufficiently recognized, in full view of the following: (a) the victim F was able to verify the appearance that the victim F was shacker Defendant and D, and (b) the victim F was sprinked with the victim F, requiring two weeks medical treatment; and (c) the victim F is likely to have suffered from the victim’s hump and tensions; and (b) the Defendant and D suffered from the victim F’s hump bucks by launching the victim F, as described in Article 2 of the facts charged in the 2015 Highest 166 case.
2) As to the charges No. 3 of the 2015 High Order 166, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as to the charges No. 3 of the 2015 High Order 166, namely, the victim C and F were frequently engaged in funeral services from the investigative agency to the lower court’s court to the date four days after the J market head was affixed
(2) On October 26, 2014, at the time when the victim C opened L’s door to conduct business on October 26, 2014, the victim C was required to demand the Defendant, D, B, and A to pay back the L’s door to A and D on October 26, 2014; and